User talk:Edsalamon

Assuming that you are the 'Ed Salamon' referred to you should not be editing the 'Ed Salamon' page. This is a clear conflict of interest. Wikipedia policy is that you don't edit anything connected with yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Mtpaley (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Edsalamon, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

information about conflict of interest policy[edit]

Hello, Edsalamon. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article[edit]

Your assertion that the Ed Salamon article was "vetted" for 10 years is pretty inaccurate. As anyone can see who looks at the history is that the primary editors have been your two accounts and a few IP addresses: it has not had any serious overview by any third party or seasoned editor.

If as you say, the version that you created can be validly sourced, then what I suggest is that you use a User:Edsalamon/Sandbox to create a version that has the content footnoted with inline citations and then request review by some editor without a conflict of interest to review, modify as necessary and migrate to the live article space. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and again, it was NOT vetted, it merely sat there under the radar of third party editors. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was an accurate article and is being replaced by one that is not. If your interest is in accuracy, permit me to verify all points in the original article with the references that were given there. I will be glad to do that.

As I have said, you are free to do so in a sandbox, click the link above and cite away. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the last version that you edited [1] you can copy that as your starting point. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I will have to try to do that. But I am not a wiki editor and it will be difficult for me to learn and follow the format. I can certainly supply the info and maybe a kind editor who is interested in a comprehensive and accurate article can transpose it into wiki language. Just like media has picked up on the photo, it also regularly uses info from my wiki entry for write ups and introductions at industy events so it was vetted by many who used and read or heard it in the radio and music business, if not by wiki editors. If you knew my business, you would know that no weak claim goes unchalleged. It is damaging to me to have incorrect or incomplete info on wiki because it gets repeated. Edsalamon (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

there is a guide here WP:CITE. Or you can just use the very basic:

Blah blah blah blah.(Smith) Blah blahblah blah blah.(Jones p16)

Smith, Sally "Article", Magazine
Jones, Lee Book

correct formatting details are not necessary, just clearly aligning a source for each piece of content in the article. Wikipedia:WikiGnomes will generally come along and clean stuff up. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I created User:Canoe1967/Ed Salamon with an older version to fix the referencing. The references need to be moved inline like this.^[1] Just highlight the reference with mouse drag over then click the <ref></ref> that should be in the wiki markup section below the edit window. Once we get statements matched to the correct references then we should be able to move them back to article space. I also added an infobox. You can see more paramaters for it at Template:Infobox person--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Mancuso, Anne,“WHN-AM Reunion”,New York Times, New York, 25 February 2013

for any editing that you do with the old version, you would to well to keep in mind WP:PEACOCK and WP:NPOV. Showing that you can apply those important policies and guidelines would go a long way in providing evidence that you want Wikipedia to have an accurate encyclopedia article about you and not simply be a free web host for your hagiography. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edsalamon, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Hi Edsalamon! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Mancuso, Anne,“WHN-AM Reunion”,New York Times, New York, 25 February 2013

[1]